DOCSLIB.ORG

CNPS Response Letter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CNPS Response Letter California Native Plant Society P.O. Box 1346, Ojai, California 93024-1346 * E-mail: [email protected] 805/646-6045 Voice * 805/646-6975 FAX 16 April 2002 Dennis Hawkins Ventura County Planning Department 800 South Victoria Avenue, L#1740 Ventura, CA 93008 Subject: Comments on Botanical Resources Section of Ahmanson Ranch Development DSEIR Dear Mr. Hawkins: The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has reviewed the biological resources section of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) of the Ahmanson Ranch Phase “A” Tract Map. Below please find specific comments on aspects of the DSEIR that we believe are inadequate or where conclusions and proposed mitigation measures are faulty, impractical, or not supported by the evidence or by sound science. Our comments are organized generally according to resource issue, with page number citations where appropriate, to facilitate focused discussion on the issue addressed, or not addressed, in the DSEIR. CNPS also includes comments on wildlife, as wildlife species are a critical component of the natural vegetation. Without the wildlife species (including invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals), many plants would not survive, as they are dependent on wildlife for various functions during at least a part of their life cycles. Some plants depend on invertebrates for fertilization. Some plants depend on animals to disperse their propagules. Some plants indirectly benefit from activities of animals by the localized changes in the soil that the animals make, such as loosening the soil by digging or burrowing. An ecosystem cannot survive without all of its parts, and plants and wildlife depend upon each other directly or indirectly; therefore, CNPS has determined it necessary to expand its comments on projects, such as the Ahmanson Ranch development, to include wildlife. NONVASCULAR PLANTS NOT ASSESSED Even though nonvascular plants (lichens and bryophytes [mosses and liverworts]) are important components of the biological resources and biodiversity of Ventura County and the Ahmanson Ranch project site, these resources were ignored completely in the DSEIR. Comments on both groups of nonvascular plants are provided in the following paragraphs. No Assessment of Lichen Flora Lichens are part of the botanical resources of the State of California, County of Ventura, and City of Simi Valley. A number of lichens are expected to occur at the project site, and some of them may be special- status species. Special-status lichen species are listed by the California Lichen Society1 (CALS) and can 1 Magney, D.L. 1999. Preliminary List of Rare California Lichens. California Lichen Society Bulletin 6(2):22-27. E:\CNPS\Conservation\Ahmanson\CNPS-AhmansonDSEIR-comment_letter.doc Dennis Hawkins, Ventura County Planning CNPS Comments on Ahmanson Ranch DSEIR 4/16/02 Page 2 CNPS be viewed on CALS’s web page (http://ucjeps.herb.berkeley.edu/rlmoe/cals.html or directly to http://128.32.109.44/red.html). The CALS list is very conservative, and many more rare lichen species are likely present, and will be added to the rare lichen list in the future. The DSEIR failed to assess any impacts on lichens. The DSEIR and supporting documents have failed to demonstrate that any field surveys for lichens have ever been conducted in the Ahmanson Ranch development project, much less special-status lichen species. An assessment of project-related impacts on the lichen flora, especially rare lichen taxa, must be conducted as part of the biological resources assessment of the project site. As part of that assessment, indirect impacts to the lichen flora, such as air pollution generation resulting from the project, must be evaluated in addition to direct impacts. Air pollution has caused the loss of lichens in many areas of Southern California, and elsewhere in the developed world. For example, Lace Lichen (Ramalina menziesii) was once common along San Antonio Creek in the Ojai Valley2; however, it has disappeared entirely from the Ojai Valley, likely the result of air pollution. It is entirely possible that Lace Lichen also occurs in the mesic canyons on the Coast Live Oak trees of the project site; however, no evidence has been presented regarding the presence or absence of any species of lichen in the project site. Special-status lichens known to occur in Ventura County include: • Caloplaca ignea • Caloplaca subpyraceella • Cladonia pulvinella • Phaeophyscia kairamoi • Phaeophyscia sciastra • Protoparmelia badia • Punctelia punctilla • Toninia submexicana • Vermilacinia acicularis • Vermilacinia pumila • Vermilacinia robusta • Xanthoparmelia angustiphylla Additional special-status lichen species may occur in Ventura County and at the project site; regardless, no conclusions on this can be made until field surveys for lichens at the Ahmanson Ranch are conducted. For example, two new California species of lichen (Trapeliopsis californica and T. steppica) were recently described (McCune et al. 20023), with only three known populations in the state for T. steppica (one in southern California. Lichens occupy many different habitats, including habitats not occupied by vascular plants. Habitat types likely occupied by lichens at Ahmanson Ranch include: rock (including boulders, bedrock, and cliff faces), soil, and bark (trunks, branches, and twigs of trees and shrubs). Each of these substrates provides habitat to a different sweet of lichen species, with zonation on each substrate based on aspect and exposure. 2 Fry, P. 1999. The Ojai Valley: An Illustrated History. Matilija Press, Ojai, California; Charis Bratt, lichenologist, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, personal communication, April 2000 regarding Ramalina menziesii historic distribution in Ventura County. 3 McCune, B., F. Camacho, and J. Ponzetti. 2002. Three New Species of Trapeliopsis on Soil in Western North America. The Bryologist 105(1):78-85. E:\CNPS\Conservation\Ahmanson\CNPS-AhmansonDSEIR-comment_letter.doc Dennis Hawkins, Ventura County Planning CNPS Comments on Ahmanson Ranch DSEIR 4/16/02 Page 3 CNPS Field surveys, floristic in nature, need to be conducted for all lichen species present onsite, and an assessment needs to be performed in order to determine if any of the lichens present onsite qualify as special-status species. If any special-status lichen species are found to be present, then feasible mitigation needs to be developed and adopted to compensate for the impacts. Simply preserving existing populations offsite is not sufficient mitigation for onsite project impacts. The EIR fails to meet these basic requirements of CEQA for the lichen flora, and is inadequate. Project-related direct and indirect impacts on the lichen flora from air pollution need to be assessed in the EIR. Some species of lichens are known to be sensitive to air pollution, while others can be good indicators of airborne pollutants since they accumulate some pollutants in their tissues. Ramalina menziesii is a good example of a fruticose-type lichen that is highly sensitive to air pollution, which has been killed off from much of its former range in California where air pollution is concentrated. The Ventura County Superior Court found an EIR prepared for the Camarillo Regional Park amphitheater and golf course proposal to be inadequate (CNPS vs Ventura County Board of Supervisors) in part for its failure to address project-related (direct and indirect) impacts to the lichen flora present at that site. The DSEIR should be revised to include a complete and proper assessment of the lichen flora of the project site and determine if project-related impacts are significant. Simply ignoring this resource is not acceptable under CEQA. One aspect of this case was the County’s failure to assess air pollution impacts on the lichen flora. No Assessment of Bryophyte Flora Bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) are part of the flora; however, no surveys for bryophytes, much less special-status bryophyte species, were conducted for this project. CNPS maintains a list of rare and endangered bryophytes in its Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 20014). This should be consulted, and surveys of the bryophyte flora should be conducted to determine species richness; then a determination as to whether any special-status bryophytes occur onsite, and whether they will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The DSEIR fails to meet these basic requirements of CEQA for the bryophyte flora, and is inadequate. “Rockland”, as described in the DSEIR, especially on the mesic north-facing slopes of them, is good habitat for bryophytes and lichens. Impacts to habitats supporting bryophytes would eliminate this biological resource; however, this component of the biological resources present at Ahmanson Ranch was never assessed. Field surveys, floristic in nature, need to be conducted for all bryophyte species present onsite, and an assessment needs to be performed to determine if any of the bryophytes present onsite qualify as special- status species. If any special-status bryophyte species are found to be present, then feasible mitigation needs to be developed and adopted to compensate for the impacts. Simply preserving existing populations offsite is not sufficient mitigation for onsite project impacts. The EIR fails to meet these basic requirements of CEQA for the bryophyte flora, and is inadequate. 4 California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Sixth edition. (Special Publication No. 1.) Rare Plant Scientific
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume 12 - Number 1 March 2005
    Utah Lepidopterist Bulletin of the Utah Lepidopterists' Society Volume 12 - Number 1 March 2005 Extreme Southwest Utah Could See Iridescent Greenish-blue Flashes A Little Bit More Frequently by Col. Clyde F. Gillette Battus philenor (blue pipevine swallowtail) flies in the southern two- thirds of Arizona; in the Grand Canyon (especially at such places as Phantom Ranch 8/25 and Indian Gardens 12/38) and at its rims [(N) 23/75 and (S) 21/69]; in the low valleys of Clark Co., Nevada; and infrequently along the Meadow Valley Wash 7/23 which parallels the Utah/Nevada border in Lincoln Co., Nevada. Since this beautiful butterfly occasionally flies to the west, southwest, and south of Utah's southwest corner, one might expect it to turn up now and then in Utah's Mojave Desert physiographic subsection of the Basin and Range province on the lower southwest slopes of the Beaver Dam Mountains, Battus philenor Blue Pipevine Swallowtail Photo courtesy of Randy L. Emmitt www.rlephoto.com or sporadically fly up the "Dixie Corridor" along the lower Virgin River Valley. Even though both of these Lower Sonoran life zone areas reasons why philenor is not a habitual pipevine species.) Arizona's of Utah offer potentially suitable, resident of Utah's Dixie. But I think interesting plant is Aristolochia "nearby" living conditions for Bat. there is basically only one, and that is watsonii (indianroot pipevine), which phi. philenor, such movements have a complete lack of its larval has alternate leaves shaped like a not often taken place. Or, more foodplants in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Bibliography Compiled and Edited by Jim Dice
    Steele/Burnand Anza-Borrego Desert Research Center University of California, Irvine UCI – NATURE and UC Natural Reserve System California State Parks – Colorado Desert District Anza-Borrego Desert State Park & Anza-Borrego Foundation Anza-Borrego Desert State Park Bibliography Compiled and Edited by Jim Dice (revised 1/31/2019) A gaggle of geneticists in Borrego Palm Canyon – 1975. (L-R, Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Dr. Steve Bryant, Dr. Richard Lewontin, Dr. Steve Jones, Dr. TimEDITOR’S Prout. Photo NOTE by Dr. John Moore, courtesy of Steve Jones) Editor’s Note The publications cited in this volume specifically mention and/or discuss Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, locations and/or features known to occur within the present-day boundaries of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, biological, geological, paleontological or anthropological specimens collected from localities within the present-day boundaries of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, or events that have occurred within those same boundaries. This compendium is not now, nor will it ever be complete (barring, of course, the end of the Earth or the Park). Many, many people have helped to corral the references contained herein (see below). Any errors of omission and comission are the fault of the editor – who would be grateful to have such errors and omissions pointed out! [[email protected]] ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As mentioned above, many many people have contributed to building this database of knowledge about Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. A quantum leap was taken somewhere in 2016-17 when Kevin Browne introduced me to Google Scholar – and we were off to the races. Elaine Tulving deserves a special mention for her assistance in dealing with formatting issues, keeping printers working, filing hard copies, ignoring occasional foul language – occasionally falling prey to it herself, and occasionally livening things up with an exclamation of “oh come on now, you just made that word up!” Bob Theriault assisted in many ways and now has a lifetime job, if he wants it, entering these references into Zotero.
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plant List
    UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve Plants Below is the most recently updated plant list for UCSC Fort Ord Natural Reserve. * non-native taxon ? presence in question Listed Species Information: CNPS Listed - as designated by the California Rare Plant Ranks (formerly known as CNPS Lists). More information at http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php Cal IPC Listed - an inventory that categorizes exotic and invasive plants as High, Moderate, or Limited, reflecting the level of each species' negative ecological impact in California. More information at http://www.cal-ipc.org More information about Federal and State threatened and endangered species listings can be found at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/ (US) and http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ t_e_spp/ (CA). FAMILY NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME LISTED Ferns AZOLLACEAE - Mosquito Fern American water fern, mosquito fern, Family Azolla filiculoides ? Mosquito fern, Pacific mosquitofern DENNSTAEDTIACEAE - Bracken Hairy brackenfern, Western bracken Family Pteridium aquilinum var. pubescens fern DRYOPTERIDACEAE - Shield or California wood fern, Coastal wood wood fern family Dryopteris arguta fern, Shield fern Common horsetail rush, Common horsetail, field horsetail, Field EQUISETACEAE - Horsetail Family Equisetum arvense horsetail Equisetum telmateia ssp. braunii Giant horse tail, Giant horsetail Pentagramma triangularis ssp. PTERIDACEAE - Brake Family triangularis Gold back fern Gymnosperms CUPRESSACEAE - Cypress Family Hesperocyparis macrocarpa Monterey cypress CNPS - 1B.2, Cal IPC
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomic Report of the INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY
    Volume 7 1 February 2010 Number 3 The Taxonomic Report OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEPIDOPTERA SURVEY TIPS ON COLLECTING AND REARING IMMATURES OF 375 BUTTERFLY AND SKIPPER TAXA JACQUE WOLFE 459 East 2700 South Apt 16, Salt Lake City, UT 84115 JACK HARRY 47 San Rafael Court, West Jordan, UT 84088 TODD STOUT 1 1456 North General Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 ABSTRACT: Rearing techniques are discussed for 375 different butterfly and skipper taxa from Utah and beyond. Additional keywords: ova, larvae, pupae, over wintering, obtaining and caring for immatures INTRODUCTION The authors of this paper, Jacque Wolfe, Jack Harry, and Todd Stout, with contributions from Dale Nielson have over 100 years combined experience collecting and rearing butterflies. This publication includes natural and lab host plants. We hope that this information will help you avoid some of the mistakes and losses we have experienced. We also hope that this publication will encourage someone who has only collected adults to give rearing a try. For those new to rearing we encourage starting small. Not only can rearing provide perfect specimens but also provide knowledge regarding the life histories of butterflies, which includes how to find caterpillars or how to entice live females to lay eggs. The advantages justify the time and effort it requires. Another advantage of rearing is that some species, like Papilio indra and Megathymus species, are difficult to collect as adults. Therefor, rearing them can be much easier. For example, collecting larvae or netting a single live female can result in obtaining a nice series of perfect specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • Crassulacea No 5
    CRASSULACEA NO. 5 29. SEPTEMBER 2017 Miscellaneous notes and observations of the International Crassulaceae Network Margrit Bischofberger Corrections in Genus Echeveria - 1 Published by International Crassulaceae Network - Switzerland ISSN 2296-1666 CRASSULACEA No.5 29. September 2017 ISSN 2296-1666 Impressum Publisher International Crassulaceae Network c/o Margrit Bischofberger Guggenbühlstrasse 20 CH-8355 Aadorf Mail [email protected] 2 CRASSULACEA No.5 29. September 2017 ISSN 2296-1666 Table of Contents Echeveria corallina Alexander, 1941 .................................................................. 5 Echeveria cuspidata var. gemmula Kimnach, 2005 ........................................... 6 Echeveria desmetiana De Smet, 1874 ................................................................ 7 Echeveria elegans var. kesselringiana von Poellnitz, 1936 ................................ 9 Echeveria goldiana E. Walther 1959 ................................................................. 10 Echeveria holwayi Rose, 1911 ......................................................................... 11 Echeveria hyalina E. Walther, 1958 .................................................................. 12 Echeveria parrasensis E. Walther, 1959 ........................................................... 13 Echeveria rauschii van Keppel, 1969 ............................................................... 14 Validation of Echeveria sanchez-mejoradae E. Walther, 1972 ........................ 15 Echeveria sessiliflora Rose, 1905,
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Azul Wildflower Guide
    WILDFLOWER SURVEY 100 most common species 1 2/25/2020 COMMON WILDFLOWER GUIDE 2019 This common wildflower guide is for use during the annual wildflower survey at Sierra Azul Preserve. Featured are the 100 most common species seen during the wildflower surveys and only includes flowering species. Commonness is based on previous surveys during April for species seen every year and at most areas around Sierra Azul OSP. The guide is a simple color photograph guide with two selected features showcasing the species—usually flower and whole plant or leaf. The plants in this guide are listed by Color. Information provided includes the Latin name, common name, family, and Habit, CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants rank or CAL-IPC invasive species rating. Latin names are current with the Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2012. This guide was compiled by Cleopatra Tuday for Midpen. Images are used under creative commons licenses or used with permission from the photographer. All image rights belong to respective owners. Taking Good Photos for ID: How to use this guide: Take pictures of: Flower top and side; Leaves top and bottom; Stem or branches; Whole plant. llama squash Cucurbitus llamadensis LLAMADACEAE Latin name 4.2 Shrub Common name CNPS rare plant rank or native status Family name Typical bisexual flower stigma pistil style stamen anther Leaf placement filament petal (corolla) sepal (calyx) alternate opposite whorled pedicel receptacle Monocots radial symmetry Parts in 3’s, parallel veins Typical composite flower of the Liliy, orchid, iris, grass Asteraceae (sunflower) family 3 ray flowers disk flowers Dicots Parts in 4’s or 5’s, lattice veins 4 Sunflowers, primrose, pea, mustard, mint, violets phyllaries bilateral symmetry peduncle © 2017 Cleopatra Tuday 2 2/25/2020 BLUE/PURPLE ©2013 Jeb Bjerke ©2013 Keir Morse ©2014 Philip Bouchard ©2010 Scott Loarie Jim brush Ceanothus oliganthus Blue blossom Ceanothus thyrsiflorus RHAMNACEAE Shrub RHAMNACEAE Shrub ©2003 Barry Breckling © 2009 Keir Morse Many-stemmed gilia Gilia achilleifolia ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies on North American Philotes (Lycaenidae) Ii
    BULLETIN OF THE ALLYN MUSEUM Published by THE ALLYN MUSEUM OF ENTOMOLOGY Sarasota, Florida Number 15 31 December 1973 STUDIES ON NORTH AMERICAN PHILOTES (LYCAENIDAE) II. The biology, distribution, and taxonomy of Philotes sonorensis (F. & F.) Oakley Shields Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, Calif. 95616 TAXONOMY As I presently conceive it here, the Nearctic genus Philotes Scudder in­ cludes five basic species distinguishable on a genital valve features: sonorensis (F. & F.), speciosa (H. Edw.), battoides (Behr), rita (B. & McD.), and enoptes (Bdv.). Various authors (see, e.g., the "question" to Forbes, 1948) have noted the difficulty in keeping these species all within the same genus. In a future paper I will give in detail the reasons for making several generic reassignments within the genus, based on comparative morphology, zoogeography, and foodplant relation­ ships. Mattoni (1954) proposed that sonorensis is not cogeneric with the rest of the genus and tentatively assigned the Palearctic genus Turanana Bethune­ Baker to speciosa, battoides, [rita]and enoptes. Since sonorensis is the type species of the genus Philotes (see Hemming, 1967), it would retain the genus name. Beuret (1959) maintains that Turanana cytis Christ, approaches sonorensis in having well­ developed black spots on the upperside of the primaries and similar a genitalia but considered these similarities not enough to combine them into a single genus. In the event that T. cytis and P. sonorensis should become united into the same genus upon further study, the older genus name is Philotes. T. cytis flies in Iran, Turkestan, and Pamirs (Seitz, 1909: 305). It should be mentioned that the South African Leptomyrina lara (L.) (see Clark & Dickson, 1957) somewhat resembles sonorensis in undersurface color and pattern and feeds on Crassulaceae species (e.
    [Show full text]
  • Specimen Records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895
    Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 2019 Vol 3(2) Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895 Jon H. Shepard Paul C. Hammond Christopher J. Marshall Oregon State Arthropod Collection, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331 Cite this work, including the attached dataset, as: Shepard, J. S, P. C. Hammond, C. J. Marshall. 2019. Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895. Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 3(2). (beta version). http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/osu/cat_osac.3.2.4594 Introduction These records were generated using funds from the LepNet project (Seltmann) - a national effort to create digital records for North American Lepidoptera. The dataset published herein contains the label data for all North American specimens of Lycaenidae and Riodinidae residing at the Oregon State Arthropod Collection as of March 2019. A beta version of these data records will be made available on the OSAC server (http://osac.oregonstate.edu/IPT) at the time of this publication. The beta version will be replaced in the near future with an official release (version 1.0), which will be archived as a supplemental file to this paper. Methods Basic digitization protocols and metadata standards can be found in (Shepard et al. 2018). Identifications were confirmed by Jon Shepard and Paul Hammond prior to digitization. Nomenclature follows that of (Pelham 2008). Results The holdings in these two families are extensive. Combined, they make up 25,743 specimens (24,598 Lycanidae and 1145 Riodinidae).
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Artemisia Borealis Var. Wormskioldii, Miller Island, Washington
    NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM HERITAGE NATURAL Wormskiold’s northern wormwood (Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii) Miller Island Conservation Plan WASHINGTON WASHINGTON Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 Prepared by Joseph Arnett September 20, 2010 Natural Heritage Report 2010-03 Wormskiold’s Northern Wormwood (Artemisia borealis var. wormskioldii) Miller Island Conservation Plan September 20, 2010 Prepared for The US Fish and Wildlife Service Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office Through Section 6 funding, Region 1 Project 3E2, Segment 51 by Joseph Arnett Washington Natural Heritage Program Washington Department of Natural Resources PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 ii Acknowledgements Many thanks to U.S. Forest Service staff who assisted with monitoring, including Robyn Beck, Robin Dobson, and Chuti Fiedler, and especially to Cathy Flick for all her help with logistics. Many volunteers also participated in the monitoring over the years; without their help the work would have been less successful and much less enjoyable: Nancy Allen, Kelly Amsberry, Robin Beck, Debi Budnick, Melissa Carr, Char Corkran, Kristin Currin, Rebecca Currin, Elizabeth Daniel, Kim Garner, Alison Henderson, Jurgen Hess, Susan Hess, Drew Merritt, Andrea Raven, Jamie Sheahan, Krista Thie, Jennifer Wade, Karen Whitlock, Carolyn Wright, and Sara Wu. The RareCare Program from the University of Washington provided training for many of the volunteers. Captain Jack LeFond, of Young’s Fishing Service, has transported us to the island and brought us back, and made our trips enjoyable as well as safe. Special thanks to Katie Birkhauser for her help revising the monitoring methodology in 2006. This work has been conducted with logistical support from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Host Plant Phenology and Dispersal by a Montane Butterfly: Causes and Consequences of Uphill Movement Merrill A
    Western Washington University Western CEDAR Biology Faculty and Staff ubP lications Biology 1997 Host Plant Phenology and Dispersal by a Montane Butterfly: Causes and Consequences of Uphill Movement Merrill A. Peterson Western Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/biology_facpubs Part of the Biology Commons, and the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Peterson, Merrill A., "Host Plant Phenology and Dispersal by a Montane Butterfly: aC uses and Consequences of Uphill Movement" (1997). Biology Faculty and Staff Publications. 46. https://cedar.wwu.edu/biology_facpubs/46 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty and Staff ubP lications by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ecology, 78(1), 1997, pp. 167±180 q 1997 by the Ecological Society of America HOST PLANT PHENOLOGY AND BUTTERFLY DISPERSAL: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF UPHILL MOVEMENT MERRILL A. PETERSON1 Section of Ecology and Systematics, Corson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853 USA Abstract. In the Wenatchee Mountains of central Washington State, populations of the lycaenid butter¯y Euphilotes enoptes occur patchily with their sole host plant, Eriogonum compositum (Polygonaceae). Nearly all courtship and adult feeding occur on the in¯ores- cences of this long-lived perennial. Furthermore, because females oviposit on in¯orescences and larvae feed only on ¯owers and developing seeds, the window of opportunity for exploiting this resource is narrow. I demonstrated that in¯orescence phenology varied according to the aspect and elevation of plant patches, and butter¯ies were most likely to occur in patches nearing full bloom.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Insect (Butterfly) Survey at Griffith Park, Los Angeles, California
    Kathy Keane October 30, 2003 Keane Biological Consulting 5546 Parkcrest Street Long Beach, CA 90808 Subject: Preliminary Insect (Butterfly) Survey at Griffith Park, Los Angeles, California. Dear Kathy: Introduction At the request of Keane Biological Consulting (KBC), Guy P. Bruyea (GPB) conducted a reconnaissance-level survey for the butterfly and insect inhabitants of Griffith Park in northwestern Los Angeles County, California. This report presents findings of our survey conducted to assess butterfly and other insect diversity within Griffith Park, and briefly describes the vegetation, topography, and present land use throughout the survey area in an effort to assess the overall quality of the habitat currently present. Additionally, this report describes the butterfly species observed or detected, and identifies butterfly species with potential for occurrence that were not detected during the present survey. All observations were made by GPB during two visits to Griffith Park in June and July 2003. Site Description Griffith Park is generally located at the east end of the Santa Monica Mountains northwest of the City of Los Angeles within Los Angeles County, California. The ± 4100-acre Griffith Park is situated within extensive commercial and residential developments associated with the City of Los Angeles and surrounding areas, and is the largest municipal park and urban wilderness area within the United States. Specifically, Griffith Park is bounded as follows: to the east by the Golden State Freeway (Interstate Highway 5) and the
    [Show full text]